235
This guy is clearly not right in the head
(midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
235 points (96.1% liked)
Religious Cringe
899 readers
202 users here now
About
This is the official Lemmy for the r/ReligiousCringe***** subreddit. This is a community about poking fun at the religious fundamentalist's who take their religion a little bit too far. Here you will find religious content that is so outrageous and so cringeworthy that even someone who is mildly religious will cringe.
Rules
-
All posts must contain religious cringe. All posts must be made from a religious person or must be showcasing some kind of religious bigotry. The only exception to this is rule 2
-
Material about religious bigots made by non-bigots is only allowed from Friday-Sunday EST. In an effort to keep this community on the topic of religious cringe and bigotry we have decide to limit stuff like atheist memes to only the weekends.
-
No direct links to religious cringe. To prevent religious bigots from getting our clicks and views directs links to religious cringe are not allowed. If you must a post a screenshot of the site or use archive.ph. If it is a YouTube video please use a YouTube frontend like Piped or Invidious
-
No Proselytizing. Proselytizing is defined as trying to convert someone to a particular religion or certain world view. Doing so will get you banned.
-
Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No exceptions.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The lack of omnipotence is tautological. Can a theorized seity make a rock so heavy, the deity cannot move it? If he cannot make it, he is not imnipotent. If he makes one he cannot move, then he is not omnipotent. Adding qualifications about logical consistent omnipotence is just dissembling and lame excuse making.
I don’t know if I would view this as tautological. I think the premise that whipping out a latin phrase based upon an arbitrary determination that whoever speaks now has to provide proof - now placing the burden on any opposition - is just avoiding a good faith argument entirely. Refusal to qualify a statement with objective fact and reason. We already experience the results of this shitty logic in social media spaces where anyone can spew objectively false statements and the burden of disproving it falls on critics. Sealioning and butwhataboutism follow, while the original speaker avoids ceding anything.
Whipping out Latin phrases is such a religious peepo thing. They eat that shit up without getting the message. It wouldn't be so tragic if the Latin phrase weren't an idea central to science being completely misunderstood. lol
E: Need to clarify that the Burden of Proof itself isn't central to science, but its relationship to hypotheses testing is.
I like that the answer, as far as I know growing up in a Catholic school, is that religious people are aware of this argument, but they think they have a foolproof answer that boils down to: "whoah, what a mysterious dude."